Hello Russell!

Monday January 13 1997 06:16, Russell Brooks wrote to Hamish Moffatt:

 > Don't you think that it would have been unecconomic to research and develop
 > class 2.0 to the stage of ratification IF there was NOT a significant
 > advantage on the day.

Not at all. I can see the ITU-T believing they had to issue a standard, and
that a manufacturer-created defacto standard was not acceptable. Hence
class 2.0's similitaries but incompatibilities. (Four vs three character
commands, for example).

 > Might be that todays improved CPU speed and multitasking platforms have
 > just taken the urgent need of having the fax hardware do most of the work
 > instead of the software away. This would Have to Be THE ONLY REASON that
 > Class 2.0 was not snapped up.

But class 2 does this; doesn't 2.0? Class 1 is more software driven.

Regards,
Hamish

--- GoldED/P32 2.42.G1219+